Informal Poll re how being armed may alter confrontations

[rikilii]

We all know that there are many ways that being armed with a firearm could change the outcome of an attack or other violent confrontation. We believe and hope that, on balance, being armed makes us safer, but we also recognize (I hope) that in some cases, being armed could make us worse off, either physically, mentally, legally, or financially.

Of course, the likelihood of one or the other being the case depends greatly on the scenario, but also on the training and awareness of the person.

I would be interested in knowing how different people view the probabilities of how being armed could affect certain scenarios. At a high level, here is how I see the major options breaking down, from positive to negative. I have broken the possible outcomes into two major categories, scenarios where the attacker intends and will harm/kill you if you don't resist, and scenarios where the attacker won't harm you physically.

1. Attacker intends to kill/harm you:

a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you only would have been hurt, but end up dead)

2. Attacker only intends to rob you:

a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you are injured or killed where you wouldn't have otherwise been, or a bystander is injured or killed by you or your attacker)

[unloved]

I don't understand what you're looking for here.

[rikilii]

I realize that other possible outcome categories may exist that might not be reflected in these 6 (or that some of mine could be broken down infinitely).

For sake of simplicity, in responding, please assume that the three options within each grouping add up to 100% of possible outcomes where the presence of a firearm actually changes the outcome compared to not having one.

Of course, if you can think of a major category I missed, feel free to mention it.


Here's an example of how you should answer:

1. Attacker intends to kill/harm you:

50% a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
35% b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
15% c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you only would have been hurt, but end up dead)

2. Attacker only intends to rob you:

40% a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
40% b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
20% c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you are injured or killed where you wouldn't have otherwise been, or a bystander is injured or killed by you or your attacker)

[marinville]

I'm curious how you presume to determine the attackers intentions?

Also, I'll be the first to disagree with your statement that: "in some cases, being armed could make us worse off." In fact, I believe that's a crock of shit. I simply do not understand how being defenseless against an attack would ever be better than having a chance to defend yourself, even if you should fail.

[rikilii]

I'm curious how you presume to determine the attackers intentions?

Also, I'll be the first to disagree with your statement that: "in some cases, being armed could make us worse off." In fact, I believe that's a crock of shit. I simply do not understand how being defenseless against an attack would ever be better than having a chance to defend yourself, even if you should fail.

You can presume the intentions of attackers statistically by looking at what happens in attacks to people who don't resist.

As for the other part, that depends on whether you look at it pragmatically or philosophically. For instance, it's a fact that there are people who are now dead but who would probably still be alive if they weren't carrying a firearm either because they somehow managed to shoot themselves, they got shot while trying to resist an armed assailant, or worse still, the previously unarmed BG took their gun from them. Simply failing to defend yourself against an unarmed bad guy is different than failing so completely that the bad guy used your weapon against you.

This thread is not meant to suggest that people should not carry or should not defend themselves. To the contrary, we should all prepare ourselves to react to each given situation in the correct manner. Sometimes, however, the way we react should be influenced by the probabilities of how our assailant is likely to act, and how likely our reaction is to prevent that action. The important exercise is to figure out ahead of time what type of reaction to any given situation is most likely to result in you surviving. To take an extreme example: an assailant appears on your weak side with a gun aimed at you and demands your wallet. Your greatest chance of survival in this situation is almost certainly to give the guy your wallet. 99 times out of 100, he has no intention of shooting you if you comply, and probably 90 times out of 100 if you try to draw and fire on him, he'll hit you first. At the other extreme, if you're in a store, and someone comes in and starts executing people, and you have no way out except through him, your greatest chance of survival is almost certainly doing whatever you can to stop him.

[jruddell]

I know I'm new to the list and don't mean to step on the toes of senior members but the questions make assumptions that prevent me from answering the poll. I'm not questioning the fact that, at times, some people have made the wrong choice in firearm use while being attacked but I don't think I'd have time to think about intentions of the attacker. I'm all for training (and as much as possible!) to help the gun owner react properly. If the BG ponts a gun at me I will not assume his/her intensions are good 99/100.

I know there are people on the list who have been in these senarios and I'd like to here from them about the topic.

I look at it this way: How may attackers would leave you alone if they knew you were armed? Would your wallet look as good to the BG if it could cost them their life? Why should the victim be in fear of being punished for defending their life and property?

[max384]

We all know that there are many ways that being armed with a firearm could change the outcome of an attack or other violent confrontation. We believe and hope that, on balance, being armed makes us safer, but we also recognize (I hope) that in some cases, being armed could make us worse off, either physically, mentally, legally, or financially.

Of course, the likelihood of one or the other being the case depends greatly on the scenario, but also on the training and awareness of the person.

I would be interested in knowing how different people view the probabilities of how being armed could affect certain scenarios. At a high level, here is how I see the major options breaking down, from positive to negative. I have broken the possible outcomes into two major categories, scenarios where the attacker intends and will harm/kill you if you don't resist, and scenarios where the attacker won't harm you physically.

1. Attacker intends to kill/harm you:

a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you only would have been hurt, but end up dead)

2. Attacker only intends to rob you:

a. being armed allows you to prevent it and you suffer no legal/financial consequences.
b. being armed allows you to prevent it but you suffer significant legal/financial consequences as a result of applying self defense.
c. being armed makes the outcome worse for you and/or bystanders (e.g. you are injured or killed where you wouldn't have otherwise been, or a bystander is injured or killed by you or your attacker)

1. and 2.
a - 49.5%
b - 49.5%
c - 1%

I grouped the two categories together because one could never know the true intentions of the attacker, and thus should treat any attacker as though they are trying to kill you. As far as litigations go, who knows what an innocent armed victim would be charged with/sued for.

I'm curious how you presume to determine the attackers intentions?

Also, I'll be the first to disagree with your statement that: "in some cases, being armed could make us worse off." In fact, I believe that's a crock of shit. I simply do not understand how being defenseless against an attack would ever be better than having a chance to defend yourself, even if you should fail.

I'll be the first to disagree with the second part of what you said. For example, someone who is not properly trained on weapon retention could easily get their weapon snatched by an unarmed attacker - who is now armed. The weapon could also accidentally fire during a scuffle. Of course, who is to say that they would not be killed anyway though? This goes to show just how important training is for firearm owners. I believe that the benefits of being armed far outweigh the possibility of being worse off because of it. But, one must accept that once in awhile carrying a weapon can make a situation worse (though proper training GREATLY reduces that chance), but I am certainly willing to take that chance to protect myself.

[stephpd]

I assume that in either of your two situations that death is always a possibility, it doesn't matter what the statistics may show. Since I didn't set up the situation, that being done by the criminal, I have no idea what he's willing to do to achieve his goals. Having a gun pointed at you I have to assume he's willing to shoot, even if he hopes that he doesn't. But then again I've seen enough stories of them shooting the victim, even after getting everything they want.

So, to me, option C is worthless.

That only leaves A and B, which are both out of my control. The LAW and courts will determine those.

I'll either live or die by my decisions. I choose not to have some criminal decide them for me. And the courts and the DA will just to have to sort it out. Hopefully they will choose option A but B is always a possibility.

[Deanimator]

I'm curious how you presume to determine the attackers intentions?

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

As often as not, I doubt the PERPETRATOR knows what he intends more than a few seconds beforehand, and sometimes not DURING!

But hey, if you can't trust in the good judgment of armed robbers, in what CAN you trust???

[powderkegg]

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

As often as not, I doubt the PERPETRATOR knows what he intends more than a few seconds beforehand, and sometimes not DURING!

But hey, if you can't trust in the good judgment of armed robbers, in what CAN you trust???

I would have to say that most perpetrators.... and I did say most... not all would have one of two things in mind as covered by the OP.

1. I want to kill you... (you cut me off in traffic or your left ear is higher than the right....)

or

2. I want something you have.... money, jewelry or girlfriend (or both).....

I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons, but I would bet that most situations boil down to those two things.

Obviously no one except the bad guy knows what he wants and I don't think that the OP intended for the question to cover all hypotheticals. He gave options and responses.... kinda like.. do you like the blue dress or the black dress... and do these pants make me look fat. Too much reading in to things. If you are compelled to read and reply... just reply to what is asked.